Are you serious? You would actually CHOOSE a pair of cap toe derbies to be your only pair of brown shoes? I must be either losing my mind or the suggestions on this thread are laughably ridiculous.

They wouldn't be my first choice, but for the way I dress, they'd serve better than, say, chisel-toed punch-cap bals. All things being equal, I'd prefer wingtips, but it would be a reasonable degree of compromise.

Of course, I've already gone crazy.

chogall, thank you for the information. The "V-front" -- that's the kind of blucher / derby (I've thought those were like balmoral / oxford or color / colour) that has only two or three eyelets, like the Lobb Luffield, right?

I have to admit that reading this thread has me feeling like something of a cretin over my lack of appreciation for plain captoe oxfords. I understand the principle that they're versatile/necessary/etc but I don't really feel it in practice. I wear suits nearly everyday (working in both the US and Europe) but nearly always feel fine with either something like a black C&J Selbourne, or, if something plain is required either a brown shoe or a monk. What am I missing here?

JSSDC: There is a hierarchy of formality in dress shoes. Traditionally, plain stitch cap or punch cap oxfords, often in black, have been considered the correct shoe to wear with a navy or grey lounge suit. More casual outfits can take more casual shoes, e.g. derbys, monkstraps, loafers, depending on how casual you get. Derbys can also work with more casual suits, but not your typical worsted navy or grey suit (plain, pinstripes, etc.). It's up to you whether you care about this tradition / choose to follow it, but you should at least be aware that it exists. There are a small number of environments where black stitch cap or punch cap shoes are expected with suits as a matter of dress code. They are few and far between. Basically, each step by which you reduce the formality of your shoes (switching to derbys or monks or switching to a shade of brown from black, the lighter the brown the less conservative) makes your outfit less conservative. Provided you are not wearing loafers with a suit, I think that for all practical purposes nobody will care, but if you do want to dress conservatively for a particular occasion, keep this stuff in mind.

Wait a minute. I thought blucher and derby were interchangeable terms. Whatever the case, the one you labeled Blucher would be pretty ugly in a captoe, I imagine (actually, I find that second shoe pretty unattractive as is), but the other (that you labeled derby) would look just fine to me. Googling tells me Blucher/Derby are interchangeable and are a UK/US thing. But maybe I'm wrong. Enlighten me, anyone?

Blucher is named after Prussian General Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher according to "Handmade Shoes for Men", and its suppose to be one piece vamp for ease of construction according "Alles uber Herrenschuhe" instead of the two piece leather pattern of plain derbies.. Its a subset of derby/open lacing shoes. But since I am not a shoe historian, I remain open minded to different facts.

And to your original description of 3 eyelet derby, those are named V-fronts by John Lobb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xtra

Wondering about the same. As far as I'm concerned balmorals/oxford are the same and this also applies to bluchers/derbies. Is it just a tad more nuanced than that?

Balmoral and oxfords are not the same thing. Balmorals has no vamp seam descending to the welt but goes straight across horizontally while oxfords has the vamp seam descending to the welt. See balmoral boots (EG Shannon) and cap-toe Oxfords (EG Chelsea) for example. Neitehr are bluchers and derbies.

Blucher is named after Prussian General Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher according to "Handmade Shoes for Men"...

The "Handmade Shoes for Men" book is a very good reference in my opinion. And, actually, the paragraph at the top of page 62, which begins to define the Derby, states "The Derby is a shoe with open lacing much worn in continental Europe. Shoes with lacing of this kind are also known as 'Bluchers'...". The paragraph then goes on to talk about who Blucher was.

The Blucher shoe is derived from the blucher boot, with extensive examples of the quarters overlapping the vamp in construction.

Along those same lines (and in regard to Xtra's question), the Balmoral shoe is derived from the Balmoral boot which is closed laced and defined by the horizontal seam that runs the length of the quarters. An Oxford being used as a general term for closed laced shoes, would mean that a Balmoral is a type of Oxford.

Sorry, I don’t want to derail this thread too much, but it is ultimately a thread about selecting shoe styles, so I think it is somewhat appropriate to discuss style definitions.

I know I have already learned more about the difference between a punch cap and a quarter brogue in this thread thanks to Manton and chogall.

Although the “Handmade Shoes for Men” book is not the definitive book of men’s shoes it does discuss the Oxford and suggests that John Lobb created the first modern day example of an Oxford (top of page 61) with a picture of a shoe with a seam between the vamp and the quarter descending to the welt.

However, the seam is never discussed as the definer of an Oxford, and a few pages later (bottom of page 73) in the boots section, it states that “It is possible for designers to vary the plain Oxford boot in may ways:…”. The accompanying picture is of a Balmoral style boot with diagonal side lacing.

The boot in the picture, on page 73, is clearly a bespoke boot, but it seems to be paying homage to the Oxonian half boot that the Oxford was derived from.

With John Lobb being credited with the modern day Oxford, I decided to see what they considered an Oxford. Below is the John Lobb Ilford “Ilford is a 6-eyelet prestige oxford. This style features a beautiful butterfly design on quarters. This design is enhanced by a straight and punched toe cap.”:

Plain toe blucher is blobby but yet (military) dress formal except for those who are wrapped inside an igent reality distortion field.

That's great for those wearing military dress uniforms, which are by their nature formal regardless of the shes that people are told to wear with the uniforms. 99% of the population doesn't wear a military uniform, however, and might benefit from understanding which shoes are considered more formal in a classic menswear context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louis XIV

Imo you guys spend too much time in the city and in the office especially.

That's great for those wearing military dress uniforms, which are by their nature formal regardless of the shes that people are told to wear with the uniforms. 99% of the population doesn't wear a military uniform, however, and might benefit from understanding which shoes are considered more formal in a classic menswear context.

Sleek and formal are two separate things. So are #menswear and classic menswear.

Sleek and formal are two separate things. So are #menswear and classic menswear.

My point is that you can only infer so much from what the military does. Many of their uniforms look great, but civilians should be cautious of thinking the same rules apply to them as apply to military uniforms. That, and stitch cap oxfords (frankly most oxfords for that matter) are more formal than plain toe bluchers for civilian clothes even if a military uniform is worn with bluchers.

While, it probably wouldn't be the best for a "streamlined" shoe wardrobe as the title of this thread says, but what is the verdict on the acceptability of black double monks? Now I don't work in a totally conservative environment and nobody ever says anything to me about them, however if I were to go to say, a law firm would this shoe be deemed too casual?

Also, are grains acceptable in conservative workplaces? For example see the shoe below, is that too attention grabbing in a conservative environment?

This reminds me of this oldtimer at my workplace who I saw yelling at one of his coworkers for wearing sneakers to work. The employee's rationalization, "But they're BLACK sneakers!"

Patrick, I don't work in such a formal environment, but I do live in a city (& country) where black shoes are de rigueur, and black monks are not uncommon. They do somewhat announce that the wearer is a little bit interested in... "looking cool" or "dressing well," but not in an obtrusive way. Anyway, no comment on the grain. I'm interested to hear what others have to say.